Another Let Me In pic features a boy, a vampire and a Rubik's Cube!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. You may remember I flipped for Let the Right One In at Fantastic Fest 2008 and the film ended up being one of my tops of the year.
You also may remember that I questioned the US studio remake of the film, called LET ME IN, from the first announcement. There was a lot of dangerous territory there due to the success of TRUE BLOOD and TWILIGHT, that a studio was going to grab the rights, take advantage of the grass-roots buzz of the original fantastic character driven Kubruckian ink-black coming of age story and then pander to the soap opera Vampire fans out there.
Cloverfield's Matt Reeves was on the property and when he cast Kodi Smit-McPhee from The Road (why didn't more of you guys go see that flick? It was good!) and Kick-Ass' Chloe Grace Moretz most of my trepidation went out the window. If they were keeping in the basic coming of age story... well, there is still lots of room to fuck up, but at least the foundation is strong. Then with Richard Jenkins as the vampire's guardian? Yeah, Reeves came through on the casting aspect.
The first images from the movie are starting to come out. We had one of Grace a few days ago and then The LA Times ran a profile piece on Reeves, in which he kind of begs to be given a chance on this film, and premiered a new pic, one that fans of the original will recognize.

Remakes are a difficult beast to tame and it's impossible to make everyone happy. There are people out there who grew up with the Hawks' THE THING who don't like Carpenter's version. I get that and I'm as open as I possibly can be for Reeves' film to be great. My main fear now is that he's going to be so true to the material that the end result is going to be a pale reflection of the original.
That's why he's in such a tight spot. If Reeves strays to far, he's betraying the movie people love, but if he doesn't find his own hook and inject his voice into the film somehow there will be no point in him having done the movie at all.
What do you folks think?
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

The thing that I find the funniest is that they ripped off the title, which was a bad title. "Let the Right One In" was a stupid title. I mean...it's interesting, sure, but still a dumb title. "Let me in" is even more retarded. If they can't get the title right then there's no way they'll get the movie right. Just another steaming piece of shit I'll never see.

Not much room to manuever with such a spare storyline. Either it's a take off point for a very different version which will piss off the guys who loved the original version (me) or there is not much point in making the new one (agree). Same argument to a lesser extent for Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
<p> Kodi Smit-McPhee didn't really convince me in The Road either.<p>

and just so you know i'm not horseshitting, the "inciting incident" with the sherrif at the start that goes into the story as a flashback was a bunch of unnecessary horseshit. the script was plagarism while managing to make everything new in it trite, melodramatic, and over the top. awful, just awful. and so OBVIOUS. i don't understand why anyone would remake this movie. the audience for it will seek out the original.

is a fucking embarrassment. What the fuck is it with you Yankee boys that you feel the need to repackage and remake even the most simple stories 'for an American audience' - are you all backwards to the point of insanity, or just so utterly obsessed with squeezing the cash from every concept going that you simply couldn't resist? Either way FUCK THIS FILM.

I remember laughing my ass off at the swimming pool ending. It was so over the top. It was an OK movie, but I can't really see a need for a remake. The original pretty much says it all. I could have done without the child nudity though.

I like to give remakes and even reboots a fair shot, I really do. For instance, I'm all for a Superman reboot with Brendan Routh. However, LTROI was just so absolutely note-perfect that I can't support this. I like Reeves, I like Chloe Moretz, but they need to not do this.

As it seems that it's been used to justify about a kazillion remakes since. Let the Right One In will not, under any circumstances, be improved upon in this remake. Let's not delude ourselves, it just won't. It's a free market and all, but I'm also free to kvetch like an old Jewish housewife if I want, too. And by gum, I will! America just doesn't have the olde world aspects that Sweden has, nor the icy Scandinavian atmosphere. Sorry, Matt, you might be a nice guy and all, but you're helping perpetuate this 'tude that there is no original material left to adapt (when there is fucktons), so I'm not gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. You can't come in.

was pretty overrated I thought... it was a 'nice' film, but I didn't see it as anything more. I didn't want to watch again after it was finished, which is usually a good gauge to whether a film's fantastic or not. I don't see the point in a westernised version.

sure, 'Let the Right One In.' was a interesting/enjoyable little movie, but it seems like every writer for AICN treat it like the holy grail (or chocolate covered pussy juice.. hmm that phrase still isnt funny,)<br><br>calm down, staff. they aren't doing a shot by shot remake of Psycho or anything, they're just remaking a nice little foreign film... (a film that could actually use a little punching up... it's true.)

...detail from that scene, IMO--and this could be a spoiler for those who ddin't see the original, so :<p>
<p> possible spoiler
<p> possile spoiler
<p>
<p>
<p>
<p>
When that scene occurs in the priginal, the girl is barefoot and dressed only in a house dress despite the snow and freezing cold, which lent an air of eerieness to it--the fact that she has that hoodie on doesn't bode well to me--in terms of what other little details might get ignored-Hopefully not so many that they create a critical mass of suckage.

Oskar is a 12-year-old-boy who is being bullied at school. He lives with his mother, who is loving and with whom he initially seems to have a good connection. His father is an alcoholic who lives out in the countryside. Oskar seems intelligent, has morbid interests including crime and forensics and keeps a scrap book filled with newspaper cuttings about murders. He befriends who he thinks is a new girl who moved in next door - Eli. Eli lives with an older man Håkan, a former teacher who was fired and became a homeless vagrant when he was discovered to be a pedophile. Eli is revealed to be a vampire, but the two children develop a close relationship and Eli helps Oskar fight back against his tormentors. Throughout the book their relationship gradually becomes closer and they reveal more of themselves and in particular Eli's lengthy history.
Håkan serves Eli, whom he loves, by procuring blood from the living, fighting against his conscience and choosing victims who he can physically trap, but who are not too young. Eli gives him money for doing this, though Håkan makes it clear he would do it for nothing if Eli allowed them to be physically intimate. Eli keeps the money in several boxes, along with a variety of different puzzles. These, apart from a few items of clothing and food, are all that fill the apartment. After several failures to acquire enough blood for Eli, Håkan offers to go out one last time if they can spend the night together. With the caveat that he may only touch Eli, they agree, but it is stipulated that Håkan must get the blood first.
Håkan's attempt to get blood from the last victim fails, and he disfigures himself on purpose with acid to avoid the police tracing Eli through him. When Eli finds Håkan in the hospital, he offers his own blood and is drunk dry while sitting on the window ledge. A guard interrupts them and Eli fails to kill him (so that he will not end up becoming a vampire such as Eli) before Håkan throws himself out of the window, bursting upon the ground below. The fall kills him, but he is later resurrected as a vampire himself, though one that is mindless and seeks only to find Eli. Eli is trapped briefly in a basement, but manages to escape. Håkan is later beaten to death. Meanwhile Lacke suspects a child is responsible for the murder of his best friend, Jocke (whom Eli murdered for blood before snapping his neck). Later, he sees Eli as a small, shapeless creature who lunges from the trees at his sometimes girlfriend, Virginia. Eli attempts to drink her blood, but is interrupted by Lacke's interference. Virginia succumbs to vampirism, but does not realize her "infection" until after she attempts to prolong her life by drinking her own blood and avoiding the sun, which turns her skin into boils upon exposure. In the hospital Virginia deliberately exposes herself to daylight and bursts into flames.
After Oskar fights back and injures his main tormentor, the boy's older brother hunts down and attempts to maim him in revenge. Eli rescues Oskar, and the two flee the city with the remaining money, puzzles and each other.
LMMFAO- They have run out of ideas with Vampires, so now they are resorting to pedophiles!!! Is beastiality in the sequel? Only a complete fucking retard (or pedophile) would want to see or read this. This is worse than Twilight

because there are tonalities and story elements in the novel that are completely absent from the first film version. I think a movie can be made that is VERY different to the first movie, while still being just as faithful to the novel.

1. The "Remake" is not enough like the original. While this can work, "The Thing" proved it can, it's very hard to do it this way. Look at Zombie's "Halloween" remake, what a piece of shit. Wouldn't have worked the other way either, which is...
2. The "Remake" is too much like the original and therefore seems like a re-run and completely pointless. The "Psycho" remake is an example of that, nothing new, no surprise, who fucking cares?
I'll watch this film, but I have my doubts it could ever be better than the original.

protest JUST a little TOO much? heh. (hint: never let them babysit) Those are the ones to watch. Look at all the anti-gay activists who end up getting caught smoking pole. And the priests that preach morality while they kiddie diddle in tents on the weekends. Even as far back as Shakespeare this was understood. I'm just sayin'.

It IS an Americanization of the original. Why 'remake' a stylish, thrilling and moving film that was easily one of the best films released in 2008? Tomas Alfredson made a brilliant film with 'Let the right one in' - in fact it's certainly one of the best vampire films I've seen. So why in the blue fuck remake a film that is barely just two years old? I hope Reeve's just makes his own adaptation of the book, that's the only way this new version can justify its own existence and not be a shot-for-shot remake of the original. Sure it's a great cast, McPhee and Moretz are fine little actors but there simply isn't any reason to make this film other than to appease a large proportion of filmgoing American's who hate reading subtitles.

for a neat little quote is, right? Maybe you just wanted me to respond to you because you're lonely. Well, good job!<p>
What I said was: "Sorry, Matt, you might be a nice guy and all, but you're helping perpetuate this 'tude that there is no original material left to adapt (when there is fucktons), so I'm NOT gonna give you the benefit of the doubt."<p>
Read it again a couple of times and you'll realise I'm saying OF COURSE there are tons of original things that could be adapted, and yet Hollywood keeps on doing these remakes because they're easy money. The cache of the original saves them having to sell an untenable new project to the mouthbreathing masses.

hence most people not paying seven bucks and two hours of their weekend time to experience it. And even if Let Me In is a shot for shot remake, the studio might be thinking that if the characters are at least speaking English, they can milk a little money out of it. I'm curious where the US version is set. Minnesota? Maine?

People didn't go see "The Road" because the Weinsteins kept jacking with the release schedule. By the time I found out it was actually being shown in my town, the run was basically over. So I just waited for it on Blu-Ray. The Weinsteins suck.

You're implying the movie counts as original material. What I meant was they're doing another movie adaptation of the same novel for nothing more than moolah. Money is reason enough though, unfortunately.

have even been auditioned for their parts and for the chemistry between them.or they were chosen without second thought,only because they are already familiar faces (especially Chloe) in two previous movies? hmmmm

I think what he's pointing out is that if the material is truly original, then it couldn't be an adaptation. But then again I don't fully agree with that notion either, because it could be original in it's medium, i.e book to movie.
<p>
Can't believe no ones mentioned The Fly. Classic remake. But someone said "why do you Yankees feel the need to remake everything." First of all douche, a small group of people (mainly Jews) make those decisions, not all of us. Secondly, are you not aware of how Hollywood studio system works? It has one goal...make money. Perhaps now you can understand the American remake craze without pointing your finger at all of us.
<p>
And Quint, I know your trying to sound insightful with your little "remake breakdown" at the end of the post, but all I can say to that is thank you captain fucking obvious.

Why do all American remakes feel as if Hallmark Hall of Fame remade Lolita? <br> <br>
It's a good thing Leon was in English or else we would have been subjected to a remake starring Bruce Willis and Dakota Fanning.<br> <br>
(Somewhere, a hack producer steals this idea, "rebooting the Leon Franchise" and trading Bruce and Dakota for The Rock and Chloe Grace Moretz. Financed by Disney.)

I never understood why foreign movies were remade, and not only remade, but, done so very soon to their original conception. Just watch the original. If you're too stupid to read subtitles and watch a movie then you're too stupid to appreciate it anyway.

Range of expresion to pull this off? I haven't seen anything of her yet so I have no idea, but the two pics released thus far (very little to go on, I know) leave me worried. Lina Leandersson owned that role through facial expression and projecting with her eyes (great example is the final scene in the pool where all you see is half of her face). Does anyone think that Chloe can pull that off?

One of the hooks of this scene is Eli NOT wearing a coat, just a nightdress and Oskar being puzzled as to why she doesn't feel the cold.<p>Fuck this film, fuck the hack making it and fuck all the ADD American bell-ends who are too fucking stupid to sit through a subtitled film.

And the book was super fuckin' weird. Hope that they include some more of the book stuff in the American remake. That fucked up scene with the stoner kid in the basement with the blind vampire was harsh! Anyway, no additional book stuff will mean I won't give a fuck about this - the original is great and all I need (unless they add some other stuff).

...as a bum fucking you in the ear.
If i thought there was a chance this one had more of the weird stuff in the book I'd be happy. But come on, what are the chances this WONT be a safe PG13 to try and make as much money as possible?

..then make up a new ending. People are going to hate it just as much even if he doesn't. At least have the balls to make up a "20 years later" scene or something.
Otherwise leave the film alone it was awesome enough.

of Infernal Affairs. <p> But that movie had Scorsese and Nicholson...and Dicaprio...and Damon....and Alec....and Wahlberg did great too. That movie was fucking awesome. <p> No way Let Me In will be as good as the original. After seeing that ending, the remake needs something as shocking but different enough to feel fresh. TBH, if the movie is good on Rotten Tomatoes then I will rent it through Redbox in 2011.

The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Adventures of Robin Hood (yes, Flynn's version was a REMAKE), The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Birdcage, The Ring, Ben Hur, Ten Commandments, Inglorious Bastards, Nosferatu, Cape Fear, His Girl Friday, Twelve Monkeys and others I am sure we could debate. The reality is most films are notthat good, including original works (like Glitter, BioDome, and Norbit). Just give thefilm a chance.

...which uses a prop from the first movie. Like that's going to make me just say "oh yeah, they are definitely on the right track!"
Big f$%!@'ing deal. This movie is part of the American, soulless, money -making machine.

What. The. Fuck. If anything, more true to the source material will be BETTER.<P>
I love the original film, but the thing that ticked me off about it was that it totally reinvented the theme of the novel, and made it more sensitive and innocent. In the book, the darker subtext, and the impression that Eli is really manipulating Oskar more than it being an innocent relationship makes for a much more insidious tone. Screw that- I don't want sentiment. I want to see Eli/Elias in full-on bloodsucker-vamp mode. I want to see him getting his wang chopped of by some ancient vampire. I want to see the pissball. And I want to see Tommy (not present in the movie) mash the head of a vampire repeatedly with a trophy. We'll probably get some POS "Twilight" B.S. though.

The Departed = 'good' because Marty directed it.
Let Me In = 'must be shit' - because it's just the Cloverfield guy, right?
When Finchers Dragon Tattoo pic comes out, you'll all be jizzing in anticipation. Those are the rules for remakes on AICN, right? Departed fans can blow me.

Dude, relax. Foreign film is not necessarily gold-standard. I know LOTS of people that don't watch foreign film because they feel they have to focus too much on the subtitles and not the movie. I also know more than one person that's learned another language so they could watch foreign films without the distraction.<P>
So point being- that's an unfair generalization. Relax.

...Had the same kind of grasp over creating believable characters that Scorcese does (which includes DEPARTED, BTW) and didn't use beer commercial phonies instead, maybe people would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. That's the problem with having a track record, though...

I see what he's saying. I believe that The Departed was a pretty lousy movie when you consider how good Infernal Affairs was. Most of what Scorsese added to the story was crappy.<BR><BR>However, the big difference I see here is that Let the Right One In did not need to be Americanized. Infernal Affairs was about a Chinese triad, and their culture is a lot different than ours. In Let the Right One In, if they were speakign English you might think the movie was made in America. A remake for the sake of being a remake is the issue I have, and "Let Me In" seems to be nothing more than a cash-in, regardless of who's directing it.

Of course our perceptions of remakes change depending on the people involved. Like every movie that has ever been made. If film-makers of proven quality decide to remake beloved films and present a take on it that comes from their own personal vision for the material then that's great. But when the umpteenth B-grade director remakes a movie that's barely 2 years old and the best reason they can come up with is "Well... people don't really like foreign films" then fuck you. Go work for the Platinum Dunes sausage factory of cynical cash-grab remakes.

When did the director say "Well... people don't really like foreign films"? Hmmm... I wonder if people bitched this much about "The Vanishing" or "Insomnia"? Nothing new about remakes of recent foreign movies, friends. Jeesus, even "12 Monkeys" was a timely remake of a foreign film (er, sort of).

... and "New Moon" and (this is already a given) "Eclipse", there would be no remake of "Let The Right One In". It's a classic example of striking while the iron is hot. If even only half of the Twihards (setting aside normal people, some of whom will also be curious) gravitate toward this movie in October, it will make a killing.<P>Still... IMO a remake is, given the superior quality of the original, a total insult to the vampire movie genre.

Even if it's note perfect it would only be on par with Let the right one in. Maybe if the Swedish remade Kick-Ass with Lina Leandersson as hit girl, the flamethrower ending and Katie's real reaction to being tricked I'd get behind the whole thing as a cultural exchange but then that'd just be me. Not exactly box office gold... Fuck it.

Perhaps I over simplified, but in case you hadn't heard, the Jews by and large run Hollywood and the major studios. And no, I'm not anti-Semitic - some of my closest friends are Jewish as is one of my exes - but let's not fool ourselves about who's running the show. And for the record, I was not implying that their Judaism is to blame for the remakes, just merely pointing that most of those with the power to greenlight these remakes are the Jews who run shit.

I'm confident he can pull off the role of the boy veering on the edge of psychotic behavior. I'm skeptical about Chloe Moretz though. She's awesome in Kick Ass, but I don't know if she can do 'creepy'. Anyways either way this remake is fucking pointless and stupid.

The good ones often (not always) change the context of the original... So the Departed was good because it felt so clearly set in Boston... And The Fly was good because it keyed into 80's body horror... The more a thing is a product of its time the better... So remaking something in a fantasy world is not always so great - Mr Tim Planet of the Apes Willy Wonka Alice in Wonderland Burton.

The only thing out of place was the nude flash which related to the book but didn't really add to the film. I don't know what Reeves is thinking. You are either gonna go note for note on subtlety in which case no reason to remake it, or you're going to totally Twilight it up and soften it which is the route I'm guessing is going to be taken. Even on the rare chance that it is better somehow then the original, it won't matter that much to fans of the original. It's obvious he isn't trying to please us fans of the original, you know why? LTROI didn't make a lot of money so why would he want that repeat business. All these directors talk of "living up to the fans standards", bullshit, you just wanna make money. If you wanted to please fans, you would finance another run in theaters of the original and market it to America instead of letting it come and go in theaters so you can cash in on a remake. I would LOVE for Reeves to just admit "Well, it was a great movie and nobody saw it. We are making it in English so more idiots will see it and we can make some bank." It really is a shame. Its a shame because the cast sounds great, and I didn't mind cloverfield, but that is no excuse. I will HAVE to wait until it is a rental to see it. Not because I think it will be terrible but because it would be nice if we could all send a message that we don't need remakes and instead it would be better if foreign movies were marketed better and not dropped to the side. Also, I like Chloe, but there is no way her eyes can accomplish what Lina did. I'm just in disbelief I guess that it is being remade at all, being remade so soon, and that there is any kind of notion that this remake will bring anything new dynamically to the story. I bet the effects budget will be higher, a few instances of the story will be different (I'm guessing with Jenkins role), and it will have a different ending. Rant over. Time for bed.

you're an anti-semite. Otherwise, why make it a point of contention? You could have made the same point, with about 99% less implied hatred, if you dropped the "(mainly Jews)". And did you actually say, "And no, I'm not anti-Semitic - some of my closest friends are Jewish"??? HAHAHA! REALLY? You mean, you've even *befriended* some of them? Gasp! How open-minded! Hahaha! Seriously, man, say what you just said here to one of your alleged friends of Jewish heritage and see how they react.

they had 2 bullets, in the beginning of the movie, and the world was filled with cannibals and people who'd kill them on sight just for whatever food they had. so hiding behind a hill was a smart thing to do. sorry it didn't make for an exciting movie/book. maybe if Viggo had an iron suit on he could've flown around, all CGI and really fast so it was all blurry, and kicked cannibal ass...that woulda been cool right?

there was 31 years between them! The only reason this is getting made is because most of the fucking retards it's aimed at can't be bothered reading subtitles. I actually don't care how good this is, if it's too much like the original what's the point? If it strays too far again, what's the point? They even dumbed down the fucking title.

It's still unnecessary. <p> If you want to watch a cinematic version of that great book, one already exists, and it's a masterpiece. So why move the story to America, where it doesn't belong? It's like remaking Pan's Labyrinth. What's the fuckin point? <p> Oh, I forgot. Money.

Chill the fuck out. I can refer to my friends Jewishness whenever the fuck I want, and they don't get their panties all in a bunch like you. All I did was state a fact - Jews run Hollywood. Oh watch out! Big anti-Semite here! Stop acting all holier than thou, like suddenly being politically correct is a requirement for posting here. Your the only one freaking out over seeing word Jew used in a completely non-derogatory manner. If you seriously think that qualifies me as an anti-Semite, then you are clearly a fucking moron. Any Jew that I know would read your response and laugh at you for getting so offended over nothing and insist you take the stick out your ass. Next you'll get offended when someone says blacks dominate the NBA.

There's a reason that was kept out of the original. It's fine on prose, but would be confusing as fuck on screen.
I didn't like the way the original left it so ambiguous (quick shot of eli's scar), but realize that given the time constraints there was really no other alternative. Going into further detail would have derailed things.

In this case, a note-by-note remake seems a bit overkill since, aside from the subtitles, we already have that movie and not too long ago. Personally, since we have that movie, I am fine with them staying true to the feel of the original, but since they are not updating anything I am more open to them changing things that they think will make better impacts or (de)emphasize certain things. I'd also be cool with them taking a look back at the book and seeing if there are changes they could make based on different decisions than the director for "Let the Right One In" chose to put in or leave out. As long as they are respectful of the original (book & movie) and it ends up being done well (not turned into Twilight, or done XTREME! style), I wish them all the luck and will probably check it out.<p><p>The one thing that I think makes me less opposed to this remake is, simply, a lot of Americans (and presumably other native English speaking people) did not see this because it was in Swedish I believe. Subtitled movies are not going to hit as many people since a significant portion of the population just aren't going to read subtitles in a movie. So I do like the fact that this great movie will get a chance to reach a greater audience (albeit in a remade format) that might not have even been aware of the original.<p><p>-Cheers

You make this remake more like the original book. From what I've heard, the original story had more information and scenes dealing with the "uncle" that weren't in the movie. So you remake the movie, and change the relationship/scenes with the uncle character. Will it make it better or worse? I don't know, but that is how you remake the movie and still make it your own.

I know what the book says of Hakan but what I thought was so interesting about the movie was that the relationship Eli created with Oskar was something she did repeatedly so that she had a protector. Hakan was getting old and couldn't hack it so she needed a new one and so the cycle began again. In the movie they didn't go into Hakan's past so it felt that Hakan started young like Oskar and grew into an old man which made me feel sad for the fate of Oskar one day he'd get old and have to watch as he was replaced.

While I think it would be very interesting to see, I think that it would be very hard to put to film. The book works on this level because of a lot of internal monolog that won't translate well to the screen. And adding in the side characters would either mean a much longer film, or cutting down on the Eli/Oskar scenes. It would be a great thing to see, but incredibly difficult to do, and given how a lot of it is fairly "disturbing", unlikely for a Hollywood movie.

... making a new adaptation from the book. If they can stay truer to the book than the first movie did, we'll have two very different movies based on the same property. It'll be tough to stay true to the book though. At least for an American studio picture.

Totally agree. Oskar replacing Hakan; the idea that Hakan started as a boy in love with the Vampire like Oskar, made the movie for me. Huge improvement on the source material; Hakan being a disgraced teacher/pedophile just seems like sensational nonsense. Hakan being the future of Oskar, that's tragedy.

Different people picked up completely different thoughts in the original. What I loved about it was how completely subjective it was, and how it left it up to the viewer to reach their own conclusions. From purely the movie alone (without reading the book) you can come out with either a more sinister Eli that is using Oskar as a replacement for Hakan and perhaps has done this for decades, or you can think of it as a genuine and real love story where Oskar is special and unique to Eli.

AND I loved it, so I'm up for seeing it again in another form. But I do feel however if you take the scandinavian out of it you'll loose ALOT. Most of its charm was that it was so out of context for alot of us outside of Scandinavia. MAtt Reeves has really got to pull off something amazing!!

AND I loved it, so I'm up for seeing it again in another form. But I do feel however if you take the scandinavian out of it you'll loose ALOT. Most of its charm was that it was so out of context for alot of us outside of Scandinavia. MAtt Reeves has really got to pull off something amazing!!

And that's exactly why film watching is such a subjective experience. I would rate Let the Right One In as much better than any Kubrick film other than Full Metal Jacket or Dr.Strangelove, which are close. But like I said, it's purely subjective.

... with a good cast i would be rich. ARMAGEDDON has a great cast, and look how it turned out. Unfortunatly, good actors do not a movie make. They can help, if the filmmakers are competent and dedicated to the telling of the tale, but otherwise, they ar ejust another cog in the machine. They alone can't turn shit to gold.<br><br>For good or ill, for me i measure my interest in a movie-to-be on the filmmakers (directors, writers, producers) far, far more then the cast. yeah, i do credence to the author theory. And this movie is from the director of CLOVERFIELD. Not a bad movie per se, but hardly a mindblogging awesome piece of cinematic glory either. And then there's the american post-production film process, which included the dreaded audience test screening, whihc, the way is ee, has caused more harm then good and it's very much responsible for the big amount of bad movies being released by Hollywood every year. test screeenings, a process which help make movies homogenized and thematically and narratively cowardly.

You are not telling that because you are norwegian and the original movie is swedish, and you are indulging in the typical rivalry that exists between the swedish and the norwegians, right? C'mon, amdit it, your swedish enighbours made one hell of a great movie with LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. Fuck the rivalry, this is cinema, it's above national considerations.<br><br>And by the way, DEAD SNOW was lots of fun, hillarious like hell.

You just voiced my fears about the remake. Can you check out some of my posts in the other talkback about this movie, and see if i'm too off the mark in what i listed as the possible changes and things that will be in the remake? If you so chose, i could copy and paste them in here, for your pleasure.

Maybe if they set the remake in Minessota and make the movie in the style and fashion of FARGO, maybe it could work. FARGO is set in that area in minesota which was mostly colonised by swedish and norwegian emigrants, and their own peculiarities in manerisms and speech paterns made the movie and the character have their own peculiar aspect that differenciated from most other american movies.

Thats actually a pretty cool angle! You right! Fargo did have a different vibe. Think its also the long scenes with minimal edits. I had no idea about Minesota! Any idea which part of America the remake is set in?

I think it's set in a rural city or town in New Mexico. I'm not too familiar with New Mexico to know if it has a wintertime similiar to Sweden. But certainly it might not have that swedish vibe to it that the minesotean cities of Brainerd and Fargo. I guess for a foreing like me, that character might speak and act a bit like texans. Actually, i don't know much about the differences between new mexicans and texans, i don't know enough of each to tell the difference.

I wasn't even defending Reeves per se. I'm just ticked off that The Departed gets a free pass because of who made it.
When it came out, Empire magazine said 'oh it's got this great shock ending in an elevator'....
Yeah. That would be the same shock ending the ORIGINAL film had.
Empire probably didn't mention Infernal Affairs much during their review, but I'll bet you dollars to douhgnuts (as you guys say) that when they review Let Me In they'll make comparisons galore.
Nothing wrong with that, I just wish there wasn't this double standard where name directors are concerned.
Is it me, or did Scorcese and his people make a big deal about Departed 'not being a remake' because they hadn't seen the original, only read the script??? Newsflash --- still a remake! Who gives a frak if you watched it or not, it's still the same plot and a lot of the same scenes.

With today's easy access to just about any movie(once they hit dvd) there is no excuse for people to just not at least go out and watch the original, which is a solid flick.
The remake is what it is, but what irks me is when people don't bother with the original movie because an "american remake" is being made as if it is somehow automatically better.

featured young child actors that looked like real kids. Or in the case of Lena Leanderson, an old soul in a kids body. As talented as the remake cast may be, they look like Hollywoods idea of what a preteen looks like.

and the mountains of New Mexico can get very cold, and they are spooky at night. Reeves went for the other-worldly atmosphere of the place. As for cold? Hah, I'm from Saskatchewan. We'd be bar-b-que-ing outside in February New Mexico, wearing T-shirts. But I guess my frail American cousins would think it's cold...

An awesome scene to add to the movie: Abby and Owen (ugh...) sit there in their coats and hoodies, shivering and playing with the rubik's cube. In the background, a group of us Canadians are standing around in shorts and t-shirts, with a case of Canadian and quick game of pickup hockey.

Well, Canada wouldn't be too bad an option for a remake of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN set in north america, would it? Like Toronto. I think the mood and the people of Canada would make for a good alternative to the swedish setting and people. Well, i say this is what cadana and canadians as portaited in such movies as Cronenberg's non-horror movies and Atom Egoyan's THE SWEET HEREAFTER is anything to go by.

I would have to nominate my town of Montreal. It's about as European a city as you can have in North America. Winter weather is perfect, and there are plenty of areas around town which quite strongly resemble what was present in the original.

Montreal, hem? Quebecquian then. You do speak the ol' french, then? Must be fun, being a bi-lingual canadian.<br><br>I have always wanted to visit Canada. For some reason, i feel a natural sympathy for Canada, i don't know why. It looks like a nice country with nice people. The fact it's not too distance from Europe, culturally speaking, might help. A friend of mine visited the USA and Canada this year, he visited Toronto (he did the New York-Boston-Washington DC-Niagara-Toronto circuit), and he loved Canada. He felt the people in Canada are pretty easy going and the country very well organized. I salut you.

I really don't see the point in remaking a film when the original was so fantastic. Maybe if 20 years had past I could give them a pass, but it is just way to soon to be remaking a film that was so brilliant. Just because it’s in a foreign language doesn’t mean it’s not relevant. I do agree that the casting is pretty good for the US version with the acceptation of Kodi Smit-McPhee, I didn't hate him in The Road, but he wasn't great either.

Why the fuck is someone remaking this? It was a great movie as done originally, and it was only 2 fucking years ago. It's not like they're going to remake it with better technology or some shit.
This is completely unnecessary.

In the original of 'let the...' I paused it when she was in the batroom naked and I swear she had a mangled vage. Did anyone else see that. At first I thought maybe it was a neutered boy giving a double meaning to when she says "I'm not a girl"

Just so you know, and possible {SPOILERS] here: In the book,it is explained that Eli is actually a boy that had his/her genitals removed. So yes, the double meaning is there. The film is much more ambiguous about the whole thing.

Oskar was effeminate and was picked on by all the boys like a piggy being raped, while Eli was his strong protector...the alpha male...minus the nuts. That's why Oskar's acceptance of the fact that Eli was a boy was so easy...because he was the Girl in the movie. <p> It also robs the feminists of any empowering fantasies, because ultimately their heroic Kick Ass heroine is a dude. Kill Bill/Kick Ass feminists will have to seek their healing elsewhere.

An interesting interpretation, but I think I have to disagree with it. Oskar may have been meek and mild, but that does not equate with effeminate. Nor does being weak imply that Oskar is filling the role of the "girl". Also note that the Oskar in the movie is radically different than the one in the book. Also, just because Eli is physically more powerful than Oskar does not imply masculinity or a dominant alpha role. Regardless of what gender Eli may have been born with, Eli clearly identifies herself as female. I think it is folly and borderline misogynistic to assume that a position of power means masculine and a position of weakness implies feminine.

but you still haven't addressed the substantive problem- that you are a hypocritical pointy-domed pervert with a penchant for buggering your wooly flock and making sweeping generalisations about other countries.
<P>PS- if you manage to remove your head from your sphincter for 2 seconds you meay realise that Canada has nothing in common with that third world country you call home. Try either Morocco or Brazil, and Brazilians deny it. <P>You're Spain's mongoloid cousin that they hide out of sight and feed fish heads in the hope that nobody will find out about you.

... and i'm sorry for the bashers, but it confirmed again what i already know about the movie: It's excelent. Ney, it's a masterpiece, and not just of the horror genre. Those who don't like the movie, it's their loss.

It's not folly and misogynistic to assume positions of power are masculine and positions of weakness are feminine. One need only look to the power structures in this world and see which gender is most represented, and then look at the weaker sex, and you'll see it being women most often. Even look at movies, and see the damsel in distress....it's going to be a female damsel....I'm not inventing anything new here...I'm seeing the world how it is, not how one would like to see it.

Just because you think it's a masterpiece doesn't necessarily make it so. If some don't like it then that's up to them. <P>Anyway, you watch it while stroking your happy place thinking about the paedophilic undertones of the film.

It's a false conclusion though. Representation does not equal level of power or dictate that one gender is "more powerful" than the other. Taken to your conclusion, it would also mean that English speakers are dominant over non English speakers, Caucasians of Euro descent are dominant over non-Caucasians, etc... A perceived gender role of dominance is quite simply, something from a different era. Relating it to the movie, just because Oskar is perceived as weak does not imply feminine. There is nothing present to suggest such a thing. The flip side is Eli, while physically more powerful than Oskar, still is clearly identified as feminine in the relationship. She demonstrates a uniquely more sensitive side than Oskar, and while she may protect him, she is not dominant over him. If anything, in many ways Oskar is dominant. She repeatedly returns to him, requiring his presence for comfort. I am forced to stand by my statement that equating power with the masculine and weakness with the feminine is in fact, misogyny. They are simply different.

The original is good but i dont care much for domestic film. It IS mostly utter shit. I've seen the aesthetics and artistic sensibilities used in this movie a hundred times in other scandinavian movies so it didnt impress me that much.

Because you want to believe men and women are equal...the fact is...women are weaker. That's why sports on TV aren't co-ed. Because it wouldn't be fair to the women because men are stronger. Saying so isn't misogynistic...it's fact. Men are stronger than women. Women are weaker than men.

I'm not arguing that fact. Men usually have a larger physique and more muscle mass than women, and are physically stronger. However, this has nothing to do with dominance or a perceived societal role. Being physically stronger is not indicative of playing the male role in a relationship, or being dominant. It is simply a physical state of being. Dominance is way more about personality and confidence than it is about being physically strong. That being said, I have met many, many women with a very dominant personality, who are by no means masculine. I have met many easy going men who are by no means feminine. I have also met physically strong women and physically weak men. Simply being physically weak or mild mannered does not make one feminine. Being physically strong or assertive does make one masculine.

If you go back to my original post...and typically, males are the protectors. That's what women seek in males...those are the characteristics they find attractive typically, protection, physically, financially, and otherwise. In this case, she is the protector. Only, she's a he. And he's an effeminate boy, more feminine than she(he) is.

That's more or less a gender stereotype though. I think that throughout nature there are many examples of females playing a strong protector role as well. Regardless, OSkar fulfilled the same role for Eli, protecting her from when Lacke was going to kill her. In this case he did this at great personal risk. He was no match for Lacke, and still protected her as best he could. Eli was never in any real danger from the bullies, given how quickly and easily she tore them apart. I would read this as a case where each characters protects the other as best as they are capable. Eli might be the more physically strong, but Oskar demonstrated an equal desire to protect her from harm as she did for him.